nicolau, I picked "do no harm". "Truthfully I killed that man" does nothing for me.
Challenge to Athiests - is Religion a Pox on Mankind?
by jgnat 169 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
nicolaou
Actually I'd agree with you on 'do no harm' except that it really is the least we can do. Before I comment further though I really ought to give your thread enough respect and read it through . . .
-
Ruby456
jgnat, thoreau is an interesting read - couldn't access that book though. have been reading about him on wiki. You and BOTR and others who have asked may enjoy what anthropoligists are saying about DST - Developmental Systems Theory. this theory moves away from the selfish gene evolutionary model in that they see it as too reductionist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_systems_theory
from reading your link to Haidt I came away thinking that his thought has quite a lot of agreement with DTS.
I would be interested in what atheists who seem to promote selfish gene theory have to say about this theory and how it impacts religion being seen as soley maladaptive - cofty, adamah, nicolau and others- although I don't want to derail jgnat's thread
-
jgnat
Ruby, I believe your contribution is on point. I look forward to reading it. Thoreau is also available as a free download on Gutenberg Press.
-
KateWild
Wonderful thread jgnat. I will voice something soon. Thank you Kate xx
-
jgnat
I read the overview of the Developmental Systems Theory and though interesting, it is not testable. So it is more along the lines of philosophy. I think experimenters are coming up with ever more complex models that do indicate that altruism and collaboration do have evolutionary advantages.
http://www.math.cmu.edu/~ctsourak/amazing.html
The role of genes in development is undisputed, but we are finding that very simple instructions can lead to complexity. For instance, a brain nerve cell in early development, may have a simple instruction to "go forth and multiply". If the owner of that cell is in a deprived environment, that infant's development, perhaps with the potential of another Einstein, may be stunted. Nature stymied by failure to nurture. Our brain development goes through several phases of frantic growth, the final one in our teen years. Then the brain goes through a severe pruning exercise. Observers first assumed this equates to loss of brain power, but it's really trimming to efficiency. What we exercise we keep; we lose the rest.
Our perceptive centers in our brain, by the way, rule by consensus. If the majority of the cells identify, "seagull", then seagull it is. I wonder sometimes if mass hypnosis and mass hysteria are an outward manifestation of our brain's preference to favour the majority.
-
Ruby456
jgnat - not testable by Richard Dawkins standards? this to me is fundamentalist testing as stated by Richard Dawkins himself in his preface - he says his target is amercan fundamentalist religion. I won't be part of that conversation I'm afraid other than to say that Dawkins says he is being rhetorical. I wonder what he as a scientist and not as a rhetorician has to say about DST v the reductionisms of neo darwinism. I think i will write to him as I am further down the scale of atheism than he is and the specific question in mind is a challenge to Atheists regarding religion.
as to scientific testing - how do psycholgists, sociologists and anthropologists test - is their testing philosophical? Indeed is darwinism testable by Dawkins own standards as a scientist or by the ones you mention if they are different to that of new atheists. Dawkins, in his preface admits that darwinian natural selection has its limitations and suggests that there may be other explanations that aid our understanding of the cosmos. My own studies indicate that Darwinian evolution is inadequate and DST, the one we are taking a detailed look at now but from an anthropological angle, is more satisfying than natural selection's selfish gene model. On the other hand if the selfish gene model aids one to develop enough ego/self interest to leave fundamentlist religion then I would promote it but even so I woul do it very cautiously and only as stepping stone - definitely not as all embracing truth.
regarding all embracing truth, in its universalising features, we have kantian metaphysics to thank. what i am saying is that it isn't that the modularity of the mind causes us to speak of and desire universally applicable norms but kants philosophy that influences and underpins our thought in the west. so this is an outside influence on our minds.
-
Ruby456
Once we put Kant's ideas in its place and view it as critical dialogue but one amongst many we can then begin to think in terms of questioning metaphysical foundations for norms and values and aim to, as I mentioned before, get people to justify their claims to all embracing claims and TRUTH. One such claim being that religion is solely or even broadly maladaptive according to theories of social evolution which extroplate from models of evolution by natural selection
-
Paralipomenon
I liken religion to a man standing in quicksand.
He is slowing sinking but has time to think about his situation. After a quick survey of the surroundings, there is no easy escape. It looks like he is going to die and he knows it. Rather than put all his energy to trying out different strategies and attempting escape, he thinks to himself that someone will come along and save him. He keeps thinking this until he eventually is completely engulved and dies.
We, as a species, are aware of our eventual death yet religion is like the example above. We convince ourselves that we really aren't in danger since a benevolent diety will save us in some way.
What we SHOULD do is realize that we are in a desperate situation and focus all of humanity's resources into curing disease and preventing as many causes of death as possible.
Humanity as a group seems to have shrugged, even most atheists who rather than focus everything on curing death, accept that they are going to die.
If this was a hostile alien force, or a worldwide plague, we would all be united into saving ourselves, but death is silent. It is everywhere and slow, like quicksand slowly consuming one life after another.
When comparing the two, at least athiesm is forcing people to recognize we are dying, that help is not coming. That is at least progress, religion contributes nothing other than a soothing euthanasia, so yes, I do think that religion is a pox on mankind. Largely not a malevolent pox, but a great sadness rather than a rallying cry.
-
Ruby456
okay I have to regular breaks from the computer. now I am coming back to your example jignat and am going to use it to support the Developmental sytems theory from within what you have shared. (BTW I am an evolutionist and an atheist - my beef is with the reductionisms of neo darwinianism and what and how it says what religion is)
I agree with this
The role of genes in development is undisputed, but we are finding that very simple instructions can lead to complexity. For instance, a brain nerve cell in early development, may have a simple instruction to "go forth and multiply". If the owner of that cell is in a deprived environment, that infant's development, perhaps with the potential of another Einstein, may be stunted. Nature stymied by failure to nurture. Our brain development goes through several phases of frantic growth, the final one in our teen years. Then the brain goes through a severe pruning exercise. Observers first assumed this equates to loss of brain power, but it's really trimming to efficiency. What we exercise we keep; we lose the rest.
but disagree that we lose the rest - as the rest only needs an enviroment or a developmental system to bring it forth.
